Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type
Date
Msg-id 87d0qwsw4a.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 64-bit hash function for hstore and citext data type  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tomas" == Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

 Tomas> I wonder if the hstore hash function is actually correct. I see
 Tomas> it pretty much just computes hash on the varlena representation.
 Tomas> The important question is - can there be two different encodings
 Tomas> for the same hstore value?

I was going to say "no", but in fact on closer examination there is an
edge case caused by the fact that hstoreUpgrade allows an _empty_ hstore
from pg_upgraded 8.4 data through without modifying it. (There's also a
vanishingly unlikely case involving the pgfoundry release of hstore-new.)

I'm inclined to fix this in hstoreUpgrade rather than complicate
hstore_hash with historical trivia. Also there have been no field
complaints - I guess it's unlikely that there is much pg 8.4 hstore data
in the wild that anyone wants to hash.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nikolay Shaplov
Date:
Subject: Re: Add extension options to control TAP and isolation tests
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade supported versions policy